You should DEFINITELY wait. Besides Joker in a non-origin film(Batman '89), every archenemy that shows up in an origin film ends up being very underdeveloped and Hollywood has finally realized that mistake with Joker not appearing until TDK, Green Goblin appearing later in Webb's TAS-M series, Mandarin appearing in Iron Man 3.

Although, I will say that I was pleasantly surprised with how well I liked Red Skull in Captain America, but he wasn't a villain that needed to be developed much anyways, imo.

I'll say it's entirely dependent on the character, the hero's relationship with the villain, the origin, and the overall story you want to tell. Having a hard rule that the main villain should appear at one time or another is counter productive to creativity. Just because having the nemesis appear later in one series of films worked doesn't mean that's what's going to work in another.

You should DEFINITELY wait. Besides Joker in a non-origin film(Batman '89), every archenemy that shows up in an origin film ends up being very underdeveloped and Hollywood has finally realized that mistake with Joker not appearing until TDK, Green Goblin appearing later in Webb's TAS-M series, Mandarin appearing in Iron Man 3.

Although, I will say that I was pleasantly surprised with how well I liked Red Skull in Captain America, but he wasn't a villain that needed to be developed much anyways, imo.

When a superhero movie is being made do you think it's a good idea to go with the hero's main archenemy first, or start with a different villain and work your way up to the main one in a sequel?

With the Nolan trilogy, we started with Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow first then went to the Joker in the second movie.

Iron Man: Iron Monger first, Whiplash and Justin Hammer second, with the third one now we're getting the Mandarin.

You know it really depends on the franchise. With some, I think it's better to set him up in the first movie, and to go with a "beginner" enemy (not to say they're weak, but you need room to escalate the conflict).

With others, they are so integral to the premise, that you need them in the first movie.

I'll say it's entirely dependent on the character, the hero's relationship with the villain, the origin, and the overall story you want to tell. Having a hard rule that the main villain should appear at one time or another is counter productive to creativity. Just because having the nemesis appear later in one series of films worked doesn't mean that's what's going to work in another.

Very. But I felt at least Magneto had three films that developed him. And First Class, I feel, really did Erik/Magneto even more justice by building up Erik to the point where he becomes Magneto.

Green Goblin...it was just a bad move to use Spidey's greatest villain in the first movie. It makes sense in the bigger picture of building up this Goblin legacy where Harry Osborn ends up taking the serum as well, but I would scrap all of that to see GG appear after the first film while developing Norman Osborn beforehand.

I don't know, I'm generally inclined to say the first threat should be local. Having Zod come first runs a strong risk of making it seem that Superman exists solely to protect us from his own mess, which is a bad idea.

I don't know, I'm generally inclined to say the first threat should be local. Having Zod come first runs a strong risk of making it seem that Superman exists solely to protect us from his own mess, which is a bad idea.

MOS 2:

MOS 3:

Doomsday to my knowledge is more of a weapon. Thus, it could be a weapon used by Brainiac. Also with Lex set up with the previous film more time can be given to Brainiac and one-upping Lex making him come off as even more of a dangerous and main dangerous foe. Basically something similar to what Kevin Smith did.

__________________"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag

Yes, it should. Most of the time, the only reason an archenemy debuts in a sequel is usually because its a rebooted version of a character (Ex: Nolan's Batman, Webb's Spider-Man, and now Snyder's Superman).

If you're doing a character for the first time, it should be understood that sequels aren't guaranteed, so the first film should represent the best of the character as much as possible. That's why most of these superhero big screen debuts have their archenemy upfront, and thats how it should be. "Green Lantern" was foolish not to have Sinestro as a villain from the start.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

I don't know, I'm generally inclined to say the first threat should be local. Having Zod come first runs a strong risk of making it seem that Superman exists solely to protect us from his own mess, which is a bad idea.

Not really. The first film seems to really suggest how humans, mostly from the army(and maybe the government) will react to Superman and that idea could continue when using Lex Luthor next. I find that to be a good idea, imo.

If you are talking Spiderman or Batman, then they shouldn't be used in the first movie if the movie is an origins movie. As someone else said, Joker and Goblin should be an end game boss that would crush a developing Wayne/Parker if they met.

But if you are talking someone with a much lesser rogues gallery, who perhaps has the villain as an integral part of their origin story, in that case it's kinda the best thing to do. Look at Thor and Loki, what else would really start off Thor well besides Loki? You could still do the "final fight" in part 3, but sometimes they need to be in there from the beginning.

With Amazing Spiderman I like the fact they kept Osbornes name dropping and I hope he isn't the villain in 2, but they continue the name dropping and perhaps have him appear.

Foreshadowing the big bad guy is good. Throwing him in from the start, not so good.

Also re: Batman, I believe Joker would have appeared in 3 in some capacity had the actor not died.

I hate the idea of "building up" characters once we get past this arbitrary origin stage. Batman's beginnings have been told in depth now, so it is time to move on from that. I'd love to see the next Joker right from the get-go. I don't believe that a movie superhero has to be built up to his/her arch nemesis for it to be believable that this "new" Batman could handle the Joker. He's Batman, fighting the Joker is just what he does. If you can't accept that, your problem.

The Green Lantern franchise is essentially dead. The Hulk has a better chance of getting a sequel at this point. Instead of some piece-o-crap with a great actor playing Sinestro to (at the minimum) a satisfactory level of villainy, we have a Sinestro who doesn't do much and was on the side of good in a piece-o-crap. This is what happens when you hold your ace. Warner Brothers knew back in the day that the Joker had to be in this new direction Batman movie. Then they followed it up with Penguin and Catwoman. Those were the most popular villains on the show and WB knew that's who the people wanted to see.

In Spider-Man's case, the Raimi and Webb movies are slammed together in the collective memory of the audience. That's why we're getting villains who weren't in the first three; Lizard, Rhino, Electro. I don't believe for a second that Norman Osbourne or Otto Octavius are absent because this Spider-Man is inexperienced. I believe that villain choice is often influenced by the financial matter. How can a studio convince an audience they're not going to see the same movie twice? Give them a different villain.